The Enemy Property Act of 1968 is an Indian statute governing properties abandoned by individuals who relocated to countries classified as enemy nations during wartime. Amendments have strengthened government oversight of these properties, restricting transfer and inheritance. Recent public attention has focused on the Act due to a publicized legal dispute involving the ancestral property of Bollywood actor Saif Ali Khan. It seems 2025 is off to a rough start for Bollywood star Saif Ali Khan. After being attacked by a burglar at his Mumbai home and undergoing surgery for the stab wounds, Khan has just returned home-only to face another blow: the Indian government is once again eyeing his family’s ancestral properties under the Enemy Property Act of 1968
The Act:
Following the 1962 Sino-Indian War and the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War, India enacted the Enemy Property Act of 1968 to manage properties within its jurisdiction belonging to Pakistani nationals. This act empowers the Indian government to seize properties owned by individuals or families designated as “enemies” who relocated to China or Pakistan during or after 1947. These properties are administered by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India.
The Indian government has also introduced further rules and guidelines including the Enemy Property Rules, 2015. In 2017, amendments to the 1968 Act expanded the definition of “enemy subject” to include the enemy’s legal heirs and successors, regardless of their citizenship status. The amended law states that enemy property will remain vested in the Custodian even if the enemy subject or firm ceases to exist due to death, change of nationality, or winding up of business. Currently, the Custodian holds 13,252 enemy properties valued at over a trillion Indian rupees or about $11.5 billion.
Why are the Pataudi properties classified as “enemy properties”?
Sharmila Tagore (Pataudi), Saif Ali Khan’s mother and a renowned actress, along with others, filed a High Court challenge to the February 24, 2015, order by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India, which classified the Bhopal Nawab’s property as “Enemy Property.” The Home Ministry authority based its decision on the fact that Nawab Muhammad Hamidullah Khan’s eldest daughter, Abida Sultan Begum, relocated to Pakistan after Partition, resulting in the classification of her potential inheritance as enemy property, vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India.
Nevertheless, Jagdish Chhavani, a senior advocate specializing in Nawab property mergers, cited a January 10, 1962 order stating that following the 1960 death of Hamidullah Khan, the Government of India recognized Sajida Sultan Begum as the sole heir to all private properties, both movable and immovable, previously held by Nawab Hamidullah, and that the Government of India had no objection to the transfer of such properties to Sajida Sultan Begum. He informed PTI that, as the eldest daughter (Abida) had migrated to Pakistan, Sajida Sultan Begum, the second daughter of Nawab Hamidullah, became the owner of all such properties.
Subsequently, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi (Tiger Pataudi), Sajida’s son, inherited these properties, followed by Saif Ali Khan, their current owner. These properties are estimated to be worth approximately ₹15,000 crore. However, a Custodian of Enemy Property order has resulted in a contested ownership claim, challenged by Sharmila Tagore (Saif’s mother and Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi’s wife) in the high court in 2015.
At the December 13, 2024 hearing, the government counsel stated that the Enemy Property Act of 1968 was retroactively repealed in 2017, and an appellate authority was established to adjudicate disputes concerning enemy property.
Why has Act been embroiled in controversy?
1. The retroactive application of the 2017 amendment has drawn criticism for its overturning of established legal precedents and disenfranchisement of families from their rightful inheritance.
2. Families possessing ancestral properties have encountered significant difficulties in demonstrating the absence of any connection between their assets and individuals designated as “enemies.” The onus of proof rests disproportionately upon the claimants.
3. The Act’s expansive definitions and stipulations have engendered ambiguity, with allegations of official overreach targeting specific individuals or families in certain instances.